Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[Gehrman]

Everything you said is true and I agree with that - except for the last sentence. Because all that in no way, shape and form does allow for firing rockets. That is an action (or a reaction if you insist on it) on a completely another level and not justified by Israel's previous actions - again speaking from my cosy home in Germany.

So, in my opinion, irrespective of Israel did in the previous week or in the previous 40 years - in this case the only instigator is Hamas (and that's the opinion of the majority in Germany).

Shouldn't the question be is "Is firing rockets in response" constructive in relation to the endgame if there even is a endgame anymore? Does it get you closer to the goal or further away from the goal? And of course these things apply to Israel as well. At this point it all looks rather bleak.

 

[Roane]

Everything you said is true and I agree with that - except for the last sentence. Because all that in no way, shape and form does allow for firing rockets. That is an action (or a reaction if you insist on it) on a completely another level and not justified by Israel's previous actions - again speaking from my cosy home in Germany.

So, in my opinion, irrespective of Israel did in the previous week or in the previous 40 years - in this case the only instigator is Hamas (and that's the opinion of the majority in Germany).

By definition Israel is the instigator. Regardless of majority opinion in Germany.

 

[Raoul]

So, in my opinion, irrespective of Israel did in the previous week or in the previous 40 years - in this case the only instigator is Hamas (and that's the opinion of the majority in Germany).

I think both sides are moving in opposite directions fairly rapidly at this point. Bennett has apparently actually supported a West Bank annexation and Hamas leadership continue to publicly reject the right of Israel to exist, so I would expect more conflict over the next few years.

 

[Roane]

Shouldn't the question be is "Is firing rockets in response" constructive in relation to the endgame if there even is a endgame anymore? Does it get you closer to the goal or further away from the goal? And of course these things apply to Israel as well. At this point it all looks rather bleak.

Depends how you look at it. If the end goal is for Israel to fleece a few billion dollars from the USA then it uses Hamas to fulfill it's ambition.

In an ideal world the Palestinians should have an armed authority to discourage violence and land grabbing. Backed by UN. Instead likes of Blair wanted to kill off key people on the Palestinian side

 

[The Corinthian]

None of these actions had anything to do with Hamas though. They made a conscious decision to start firing rockets. Once you do that in a construct in which you are severely outgunned, you then don't have the luxury of saying "we're just doing it to make our point, we would like to have a ceasefire now". You now have to endure a massive retaliation. So in the end, it was obviously not worth it since countless Palestinians needlessly died.

They're Palestinian, as well as the people in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The brutal actions against the Palestinians, most of whom are powerless in an apartheid state is undoubtedly going to cause a reaction to other Palestinians. Hamas are a reaction to Israeli aggression.

Everything you said is true and I agree with that - except for the last sentence. Because all that in no way, shape and form does allow for firing rockets. That is an action (or a reaction if you insist on it) on a completely another level and not justified by Israel's previous actions - again speaking from my cosy home in Germany.

So, in my opinion, irrespective of Israel did in the previous week or in the previous 40 years - in this case the only instigator is Hamas (and that's the opinion of the majority in Germany).

Well no, you're wrong here (also I doubt you speak for all of Germany).

These aren't high spec, state of the art amazing rockets. They're cobbled together in tunnels and smuggled in. Whilst we can go back and forth on the morality of whether they should be firing them in the first place, it's clear fantasy that you think they would fire them if Israel wouldn't have attacked worshippers in Al Aqsa, and forcibly remove Palestinians from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah. It's pure fantasy.

Also, let's really look at the actions Israel took here. They were firing rubber coated steel bullets at worshippers, amongst other things, in their holiest place during Ramadan (the holiest month).

Could you imagine, say, if Christians were praying peacefully in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre during their holiest time (let's say Christmas) and were attacked and brutalised? Would you blame a Christian group elsewhere for retaliating and firing rockets? What Israel have done is a totally depraved thing to do, and shows the aggressor is devoid of any sense or empathy.

Imagine if the Hindutva govt began attacking Sikhs in the Harmandir Sahib (their holiest temple) during Vaisakhi (their holiest time of year)? Would you blame a Sikh group elsewhere for reacting?

Israel knows full well what its doing and it's ludicrous that there are people here defending them.

 

[Roane]

I think both sides are moving in opposite directions fairly rapidly at this point. Bennett has apparently actually supported a West Bank annexation and Hamas leadership continue to publicly reject the right of Israel to exist, so I would expect more conflict over the next few years.

Except in 2006 Hamas wrote to bush and said they accepted a two state solution on 1967 borders and no response was forthcoming.

The clear issue is Israel persists in land grabbing and taking over the lot, with laws that discriminate against non Jews.

With those goals there is no chance of peace and Israel is the instigator backed by the USA.

 

[neverdie]

So, in my opinion, irrespective of Israel did in the previous week or in the previous 40 years - in this case the only instigator is Hamas (and that's the opinion of the majority in Germany).

The majority opinion in Germany is of no use. It's all tainted by collective guilt from the Holocaust. Germans side overwhelimingly with Israel in ways which are out of sync with European populations and states more generally.

 

[rotherham_red]

Interesting narrative being created don't you think?

West bank actions v Hamas terrorism

As @Super Hans or @berbatrick said, the whole of the territory is one.

And moreover, Hamas arguably has a stronger claim to be representative of the Palestinians than Fatah/PLO have had in the last 15 years.

 

[Raoul]

Except in 2006 Hamas wrote to bush and said they accepted a two state solution on 1967 borders and no response was forthcoming.

The clear issue is Israel persists in land grabbing and taking over the lot, with laws that discriminate against non Jews.

With those goals there is no chance of peace and Israel is the instigator backed by the USA.

The present leadership doesn't accept Israel's right to exist. Mahmoud Zahar just reiterated the Hamas position two weeks ago.

 

[rotherham_red]

I think both sides are moving in opposite directions fairly rapidly at this point. Bennett has apparently actually supported a West Bank annexation and Hamas leadership continue to publicly reject the right of Israel to exist, so I would expect more conflict over the next few years.

That just isn't true:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders

 

[2cents]

If you remove the ideology of Zionism from the land, would it remove the animosity? It’d be a bumpy road but if anything it'd diminish it at least.

Assuming you don’t share Nasrallah and Khamenei’s ‘solution’ of simply deporting all the Zionists (understood by them as all those Jews who arrived in Palestine after 1917 and their descendants) back to their ‘home countries’, removing Zionism will require some kind of positive program by which Israeli Jews can be persuaded that Zionism’s central claims are no longer valid and that a realistic and more suitable alternative means of ensuring that Jewish life can flourish in the Middle East exists. If we consider the response of Edward Said to being asked about the future of Jews as a minority in Palestine, we can begin to see just how tough an argument that is to make right now:

“I worry about that. The history of minorities in the Middle East has not been as bad as in Europe, but I wonder what would happen. It worries me a great deal. The question of what is going to be the fate of the Jews is very difficult for me. I really don’t know. It worries me...I believe it is viable. A Jewish minority can survive the way other minorities in the Arab world survived...As a Jew, you obviously have good reasons to be afraid."

In my mind a pluralistic society which gives a seat at the table for Jews, Muslims and Christians should be the ideal. Working towards that should be the goal.

That is a laudable goal and one I share. However there are more forces than just Zionism blocking its path. The Palestinian national movement has tied its struggle to the ideologies of Arab nationalism (see the 1968 PLO charter) and Islamism (see the two Hamas charters), and these are movements with their own independent, broader dynamic which are no less problematic than Zionism in terms of the prospect of genuine co-existence along the lines you’ve described. So if achieving our goal will require not only that Israeli Jews be de-Zionized somehow, it also means the Palestinians will need to be de-Arabicized and de-Islamicized somehow.

 

[Raoul]

That just isn't true:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders

This guy is a founder of Hamas.

 

[2cents]

Except in 2006 Hamas wrote to bush and said they accepted a two state solution on 1967 borders and no response was forthcoming.

That just isn't true:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders

Here is the revised Hamas charter of 2017. It is explicit in its rejection of a two-state solution -https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

 

[Gehrman]

That just isn't true:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders

The article literally says that the charter does not recognize Israel.

 

[neverdie]

That just isn't true:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders

In advance of the publication, Netanyahu’s office said: “Hamas’s document is a smokescreen. We see Hamas continuing to invest all of its resources not just in preparing for war with Israel, but also in educating the children of Gaza to want to destroy Israel.”

Imagine believing that Hamas needed to propagandize the children of Gaza into disliking Israel when Gaza is a prison camp that has been under siege by an Israeli military blockade for nearly two decades.

 

[Roane]

The article literally says that the charter does not recognize Israel.

The two state solution was presented in 2006 and no response.

Khaled Mishal in 2017 in Doha again said it would be happy with a two state solution and Netanyahu dismissed it.

It's obvious the Israelis, and USA don't see a two state solution as the answer.

 

[neverdie]

The article literally says that the charter does not recognize Israel.

Many Israelis do not recognise Israel in its current apartheid form. It's an illegitimate state so long as it occupies beyond the green line and distributes human rights along ethnic lines

 

[Roane]

The present leadership doesn't accept Israel's right to exist. Mahmoud Zahar just reiterated the Hamas position two weeks ago.

Because the two state solution offer has never been responded to. As I said it was offered in 2006 and was also spoken of by Meshal in 2017.

The only option seems to be to accept Israel as governing the whole region. That isn't acceptable to Hamas and rightly so

 

[2cents]

The two state solution was presented in 2006 and no response.

Khaled Mishal in 2017 in Doha again said it would be happy with a two state solution and Netanyahu dismissed it.

Because the two state solution offer has never been responded to. As I said it was offered in 2006 and was also spoken of by Meshal in 2017.

Can you please provide a source for these claims?

 

[Roane]

Can you please provide a source for these claims?

Wikipedia?

 

[UweBein]

Because the two state solution offer has never been responded to. As I said it was offered in 2006 and was also spoken of by Meshal in 2017.

The only option seems to be to accept Israel as governing the whole region. That isn't acceptable to Hamas and rightly so

Yes, I mean I do not know what was the last realistic approach for negotiations, but that must be 20 years or so. I do not think that peace was an option once Bush won the presidency in the US.

In my opinion, Israel will be happy with the current status, grabbing more land with every new settlement. They will govern the area and they will be happy that not all Palestinians in the west bank are Israeli citizens. It's actually a status they can keep up forever.

 

[The Corinthian]

Assuming you don’t share Nasrallah and Khamenei’s ‘solution’ of simply deporting all the Zionists (understood by them as all those Jews who arrived in Palestine after 1917 and their descendants) back to their ‘home countries’, removing Zionism will require some kind of positive program by which Israeli Jews can be persuaded that Zionism’s central claims are no longer valid and that a realistic and more suitable alternative means of ensuring that Jewish life can flourish in the Middle East exists. If we consider the response of Edward Said to being asked about the future of Jews as a minority in Palestine, we can begin to see just how tough an argument that is to make right now:

“I worry about that. The history of minorities in the Middle East has not been as bad as in Europe, but I wonder what would happen. It worries me a great deal. The question of what is going to be the fate of the Jews is very difficult for me. I really don’t know. It worries me...I believe it is viable. A Jewish minority can survive the way other minorities in the Arab world survived...As a Jew, you obviously have good reasons to be afraid."

I think we're starting to see the shoots of de-Zionism outside of Israel at least, especially with the younger generation of Jews. On your secondary point - it's again this mindset, and I suppose we can call it a European cultural guilt, that whatever happened in WW2 to Jews will automatically happen to them in the Middle East. It's not the case and never has been. Applying that mindset to the Arab demographic, who had nothing to do with what happened to Jews in WW2, is unfair. Will everything be rosy from day 1? I doubt it, but I don't think that goal (peaceful coexistence) is unachievable either. If you remove a Zionist mindset from society, then why wouldn't it be achievable? This narrative that has been built over the last 70 years of Jews fearing Arab aggression is directly linked and because of the Zionist agenda and it's creation of Israel. Jews were living in Palestine pre-1948, Jews had been living there (relatively peacefully) for a long time! Why has that history suddenly fallen by the wayside?

There's European guilt, understandably so, but there needs to be some accountability of that...for Europe. Not for Arabs.

That is a laudable goal and one I share. However there are more forces than just Zionism blocking its path. The Palestinian national movement has tied its struggle to the ideologies of Arab nationalism (see the 1968 PLO charter) and Islamism (see the two Hamas charters), and these are movements with their own independent, broader dynamic which are no less problematic than Zionism in terms of the prospect of genuine co-existence along the lines you’ve described. So if achieving our goal will require not only that Israeli Jews be de-Zionized somehow, it also means the Palestinians will need to be de-Arabicized and de-Islamicized somehow.

Again, this goes back to my earlier point (treating the symptom not the underlying cause). How much of this has risen due to the issues with the creation of Israel and the way in which it was done? Arab nationalism was emboldened by the way Israel was created. Hamas was created due to the Israel working with the PLO. My point is, all of these issues we've seen aren't appearing in a vacuum. There's a link and a cause. Hamas and the PLO only exist because Israel was created in a way that was grossly unfair to the people already there. Genuine coexistence is an achievable goal, but there needs to be some 'rightings' of the wrongs in the past. For starters, allowing Palestinians who were displaced the right to return would be one step in the right direction.

But this obviously doesn't fit with the Zionist agenda, which is the most pressing and biggest stumbling block to any realisation of peaceful coexistence.

 

[neverdie]

“I worry about that. The history of minorities in the Middle East has not been as bad as in Europe, but I wonder what would happen. It worries me a great deal. The question of what is going to be the fate of the Jews is very difficult for me. I really don’t know. It worries me...I believe it is viable. A Jewish minority can survive the way other minorities in the Arab world survived...As a Jew, you obviously have good reasons to be afraid."

Jewish-Israelis can only be a minority in an Israel which continues its settlement project within occupied land. If all Israelis left the WB tomorrow, the question of a Jewish minority in Israel would be absurd. It is only a reality within the framework of the post-67 (apartheid) Israel as settlement has blurred territorial and ethnic boundaries all the while one state (Israel) exerts forceful control across the territory. WB+Gaza+Palestinian Israelis = Jewish minoity within the region from the Jordan River to the Med. Sea. It's this region which is taken as one apartheid state because only one state exerts forceful control.

 

[2cents]

Wikipedia?

Well I’ve just posted the revised Hamas charter of 2017.

People are getting confused between Hamas accepting a state based on 1967 lines, and accepting a two state solution. Hamas are clear that they’ll accept a state on 1967 lines as the basis for a long-term truce in order to consolidate before liberating the rest of Palestine, not as the basis for an actual discussion peace agreement. They are explicitly against a two-state solution which would involve recognition of Israel.

 

[The Corinthian]

Jewish-Israelis can only be a minority in an Israel which continues its settlement project within occupied land. If all Israelis left the WB tomorrow, the question of a Jewish minority in Israel would be absurd. It is only a reality within the framework of the post-67 (apartheid) Israel as settlement has blurred territorial and ethnic boundaries all the while one state (Israel) exerts forceful control across the territory. WB+Gaza+Palestinian Israelis = Jewish minoity within the region from the Jordan River to the Med. Sea. It's this region which is taken as one apartheid state because only one state exerts forceful control.

Good point (that I missed out on).

Jews wouldn't be a minority in any solution in any case.

 

[2cents]

Jewish-Israelis can only be a minority in an Israel which continues its settlement project within occupied land. If all Israelis left the WB tomorrow, the question of a Jewish minority in Israel would be absurd. It is only a reality within the framework of the post-67 (apartheid) Israel as settlement has blurred territorial and ethnic boundaries all the while one state (Israel) exerts forceful control across the territory. WB+Gaza+Palestinian Israelis = Jewish minoity within the region from the Jordan River to the Med. Sea. It's this region which is taken as one apartheid state because only one state exerts forceful control.

The full implementation of the Palestinian right of return would also raise the question of a Jewish minority within Israel’s 1948-1967 lines.

In any case, Said’s comments were made in the context of his advocacy of a one-state solution.

 

[Roane]

When talking of recognition of Israel by Hamas or indeed any Palestinians it has to be remembered why sim are hesitant to do so.

Israeli and USA narrative is clear and we hear it on the news and read it in the papers. A tag line of "must accept existence of Israel" is bandied about as if it's as simple as that.

Did anyone ponder as to why there is a hesitancy or often refusal to do so? Is it simply antisemetic or antizionist or is there more to it?

If people were to look at it in more detail and actually listen to Palestinians as carefully as they do the Israelis and USA then maybe the picture would be a little clear. Is it simply semantics or clever word play and an acceptance of leadership and superiority?

I read an interesting book on the conflict once, will post the title etc if I can remember, it was written by a western journalist (I think he was a journalist) and he went into detail about why it's not as simple as simply saying Israel has a right to exist.

Basically the argument was that it was actually and insistence to admit one party is superior to the other, in this case Israel and Judaism. You must recognize us but we don't need to recognize you, if you will. You do as we get you and we will decide if you have been good enough for us to give you any leeway etc.

To give a rights to an occupying force before you can have any right is basically another way of humiliation

 

[neverdie]

The full implementation of the Palestinian right of return would also raise the question of a Jewish minority within Israel’s 1948-1967 lines.

In theory but in practice we know that within a newly created two-state solution there would be no prospect of returning refugees tipping the demographic balance beyond a Jewish majority within pre-67 lines. A return to pre-67 lines will never be a literal return to those exact lines but the best possible compromise between two states.

 

[Roane]

Well I’ve just posted the revised Hamas charter of 2017.

People are getting confused between Hamas accepting a state based on 1967 lines, and accepting a two state solution. Hamas are clear that they’ll accept a state on 1967 lines as the basis for a long-term truce in order to consolidate before liberating the rest of Palestine, not as the basis for an actual discussion peace agreement. They are explicitly against a two-state solution which would involve recognition of Israel.

Khaled Meshal said it in a speech in Doha in 2017. Again it fell on deaf ears.

That's not how some commentators and I see it. The acceptance of state borders of 67 is acceptance of Israel in implication. As I have written above the making of the statement "we accept Israel" is steeped in gamesmanship and one upmanship. If Israel was to accept that Palestine has a right to exist then there would be a mutual acceptance of Israel.

The problem is that for Hamas or Palestinians to say those words whilst not being accepted themselves opens up doors to a whole mess where they would become second class citizens

 

[UweBein]

The majority opinion in Germany is of no use. It's all tainted by collective guilt from the Holocaust. Germans side overwhelimingly with Israel in ways which are out of sync with European populations and states more generally.

Definitely tainted, but whose view isn't?

And we are aware that there are not many friends of Israel even in Europe or the UN. (You just need to check how many resolutions are initiated against Israel by the UN - by far the most of any countries, while governments who kill thousands and thousands do not need to fear anything in that regard.)

 

[Roane]

Definitely tainted, but whose view isn't?

And we are aware that there are not many friends of Israel even in Europe or the UN. (You just need to check how many resolutions are initiated against Israel by the UN - by far the most of any countries, while governments who kill thousands and thousands do not need to fear anything in that regard.)

You are kidding right?

The UN and likes of amnesty reports that are "initiated" against Israel have firm foundations and it's only because of the "friends of Israel" that no action is taken against Israel.

Even things like the Oslo accords had about 90 people who were "friends of Israel" in the putting together if the accords.

 

[The Corinthian]

Definitely tainted, but whose view isn't?

And we are aware that there are not many friends of Israel even in Europe or the UN. (You just need to check how many resolutions are initiated against Israel by the UN - by far the most of any countries, while governments who kill thousands and thousands do not need to fear anything in that regard.)

What resolutions against Israel do you think are wrong?

Which govts are killing thousands and thousands?

 

[UweBein]

You are kidding right?

The UN and likes of amnesty reports that are "initiated" against Israel have firm foundations and it's only because of the "friends of Israel" that no action is taken against Israel.

Even things like the Oslo accords had about 90 people who were "friends of Israel" in the putting together if the accords.

No, I am not - just saying it as it is : The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) condemned Israel the most during 2020.

These friends of Israel are a minority, is all I am saying. We in Germany - are aware of that. We are also aware that there are many anti-Israeli opinions in Europe.
For example, the EU could not agree on a common statement about the recent problems in Israel/Palestine. The reason for that was that a majority of EU countries sides rather with the Palestinians and not with Israels. Germany made sure that in that case no statement was released at all.

 

[Roane]

It's interesting that the USA insists on Hamas recognizing Israel but it has never insisted on this before against anyone who refused.

Also the refusal or non really to the 1967 borders suggests that the "recognition" of Israel means what? As it stands? So the land it currently occupies? Which would mean Palestinians having to give up land which the believe is theirs.


A point made more recently by the British Parliament’s International Development Committee report in January 2007 which noted that:

while severe pressure has been placed on the Hamas-led PA to change its policies and accept Quartet principles, no comparable initiative has been taken with the Government of Israel to encourage it to put into practice agreements it has signed up to or to end clearly identified practices which are causing poverty and suffering in Gaza. (Development Assistance and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Fourth Report of Session 2006–07, 24 January 2007, p. 28; URL [consulted November 2008]: http:// www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/ cmselect/cmintdev/114/114i.pdf)

 

[UweBein]

What resolutions against Israel do you think are wrong?

Which govts are killing thousands and thousands?

Syria, Venezuela, Guatemala, El Salvador, North Korea, Myanmar, Jemen (or whoever is responsible there I don't know), etc... etc...

 

[Roane]

No, I am not - just saying it as it is : The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) condemned Israel the most during 2020.

These friends of Israel are a minority, is all I am saying. We in Germany - are aware of that. We are also aware that there are many anti-Israeli opinions in Europe.
For example, the EU could not agree on a common statement about the recent problems in Israel/Palestine. The reason for that was that a majority of EU countries sides rather with the Palestinians and not with Israels. Germany made sure that in that case no statement was released at all.

Friends of Israel is not a minority. In UK if you aren't a friend of Israel it's political suicide.

The condemnation of Israel is warranted. It's interesting that certain narratives used against for example Hamas on here and media are targeted at Israel and the IDF in reports. Yet ignored. See using civilian shields.

 

[neverdie]

The only solution which makes sense is to establish the West Bank as a tentative Palestinian state along pre-67 lines. If Hamas are the problem, then resolve the occupation of the WB immediately and deal with Gaza on a provisional basis. Israel's refusal to withdraw from the Occupied WB exposes the lies at the heart of Israeli state rhetoric. It's a fact that Israel has continued to construct settlements within the WB ever since 1967 and is still doing so. It makes no sense at all to even speak of Hamas when they have zero influence over events in the WB. In other words, Hamas is a distraction from Israel fulfilling its obligations.

 

[The Corinthian]

Syria, Venezuela, Guatemala, El Salvador, North Korea, Myanmar, Jemen (or whoever is responsible there I don't know), etc... etc...

Why did you ignore my first question?

 

[Gehrman]

Khaled Meshal said it in a speech in Doha in 2017. Again it fell on deaf ears.

That's not how some commentators and I see it. The acceptance of state borders of 67 is acceptance of Israel in implication. As I have written above the making of the statement "we accept Israel" is steeped in gamesmanship and one upmanship. If Israel was to accept that Palestine has a right to exist then there would be a mutual acceptance of Israel.

The problem is that for Hamas or Palestinians to say those words whilst not being accepted themselves opens up doors to a whole mess where they would become second class citizens

Personally i dont think its pure gamemanship. There have been several wars to anhililate Israel which all have failed and made things much worse for the Palestinians. Knowing that the israelis arent going to bugger off its far more expedient to insist that Israel has a right to exist with carefully drawn borders and that its not just prelude to more war if that terrority is conceded. This is all with the fact in mind that hamas has a vastly inferior bargaining position.

 

[Raoul]

Personally i dont think its pure gamemanship. There have been several wars to anhililate Israel which all have failed and made things much worse for the Palestinians. Knowing that the israelis arent going to bugger off its far more expedient to insist that Israel has a right to exist with carefully drawn borders and that its not just prelude to more war if that terrority is conceded. This is all with the fact in mind that hamas has a vastly inferior bargaining position.

This is one of the fundamental impediments imo. The Israelis have their own domestic problems, but so do the Palestinians. Being severely outgunned and continuing to fight is a recipe for protracted death and disaster, which will probably come to a head after Hamas win in the next elections (given Fatah having splintered into three sub-factions) and result in a massive ground invasion of Gaza under Bennett.